get_oscal_documentation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it warns that the response may return fewer lines than requested to fit the response budget and explains the continuation protocol (`end-line` + 1 while `has-more` is true). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown docId or state that the operation is non-mutating, so it stops short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the identifying purpose plus the disambiguating alternative come first, with pagination handling last. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection, and the pagination envelope fields (`end-line`, `has-more`) the agent must not see in structured output. It stops just short of complete by not mentioning invalid-docId handling or how to know the document's total length.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so doc_id, start_line, and line_count are already documented in the schema; the description adds the continuation semantics around the returned range rather than new meaning for the inputs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the parameter work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read an OSCAL documentation page by docId as a verbatim line range") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling query_oscal_documentation, which returns snippets. An agent can choose between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("Use when a query_oscal_documentation snippet is not enough") and names the alternative that covers the other case. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.